Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)

Manikchand Birdhichand Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 28 March, 1974

(2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case. If the Public Prosecutor, complainant or accused ;so desires, a copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free of cost." It is an admitted position that the Judicial Magistrate, as well as the Additional Sessions Judge, probably on the reauest -of the parties, inspected the site but thev have not prepared anv memorandum. Therelore, the question of getting a copv by the accused did not arise. Reliance was plaoe on behalf of the accused-appel-lant on the word "shall" used in Section 539-B of the Code. Therefore, it was urged that it was mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to have prepared a memorandum of relevant facts observed bv him at such inspection and in support of his contention, he has relied on an authority of the Calcutta High Court reported in Lalu v. The State .
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Ramprakash, P. Puri And Ors on 16 October, 1969

The question of competency of a joint appeal by several per- sons convicted by one order at a joint trial was referred for authoritative decision to a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Lalu Jela's case(6). The argument before the Full Bench was that r. 6 in Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules (which are applicable to the proceedings in Gujarat High Court) was inconsistent with Chapter XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the result that a joint appeal to the High Court by several persons convicted at a joint trial was not maintainable. The Full Bench on an exhaustive discussion held such (1) [1960]3.S.C.R. 78 (2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 975. (3) [1959] 1 S.C.R. 748. (4) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 558. (5) I.L.R , 37 All, 604 (P.C.). (6) A.I.R. 1962 Guj. 125.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 44 - Full Document
1